The Commission

1. The Commission A key institution in the EU System By Florence Di Bonaventura, Marianna Manoukian and Cédric Gosse-le-duc. 2010-2011

2. The commission • Appointment and composition • Organisation • Power resources • Responsibilities • The influence of the COM in the EU • Conclusion

3. The College of commissioners At the top of the commission: Commissioners • In charge of particular policy areas (portfolios) • Further to the Nice treaty: one commissioner for each member state as from 2005 and until an enlargement of 27 countries (after that: reduction) BUT NEVER happened because of the Irish ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009

4. Appointment procedure (1) • Before 1993: every four years by common accord within member states. • With Maastricht Treaty: strengthening of the link between the COM and EP • EP consultation for COM president and vote of confidence on the college-designate. • EP and COM: close alignment – five-year term. • With Amsterdam Treaty: • EP veto confirmed for the COM President appointment. • Potential veto of the President-designate over the national nominees for appointment to college. • With Nice Treaty: EC qualified majority for college/President nomination and appointment

5. Appointment procedure (2) • With Lisbon Treaty: • The president: EC, according to EP elections, after consulting, by qualified majority suggests to the EP a candidate for COM presidency [shall BE ELECTED BY THE EP (by majority)] N.B.: if not, another canditate in one month (the same procedure). • The college: C+President: list of potential commissioners on Member states’ suggestions. After EP individual hearings and consent, appointment of the COM college by EC. • The High Representative: Appointment by EC+President (among commissioners) In practice: Change of application further to certain circumstances, many informal discussions between institutions and some political interferences related to the choice of the college.

6. Impartiality and independance COM: Promoting the general interest of the EU  Commissioners: • Independent • Chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment • No instructions from any GVT or other institution, body, office or entity But in practice full impartiality doesn’t exist

7. Characteristics of commissioners • No rules but former (senior) ministers. • Political balance reflecting the political composition of GVTs in Member States • Crucially: Commissioners = be pro-european and no link with extremist party Ex. Barroso II College: 13 Commissioners of Centre-right, 8 liberals and 6 centre-left

8. The COM President • is the main representative dealing with EU institutions and outside bodies • gives the guidelines to his commissioners + to the COM • allocates Commissioners’ portfolios • may require Commissioners to resign • is directly responsible for overseeing some of the most important adm. Services (SG.,…). • may take on policy responsibilities of his own (usually with other commissioners)

9. Cabinets Composition: • Small team of officials/support staff, with at least 3 nationalities and recruited from EU adm Tasks: • Gather information for their commissioner. • Liaise with other parts of the COM • Act as «unofficial advocate/protector » of the interests of their Commissioner’s country President’s cabinet: • Involved in brokering different views and interests amongst commissioners • Ensuring the COM is clear, coherent, cohesive and efficient

10. The COM bureaucracy • Biggest element of the whole EU adm. Framework(in 2008: Commission’s staff just under 26.000: 20.000 employed in administration and 6.000 at senior policy-making). Permanent and temporary multinational staff  on a meritocratic way but not always (informal quota for a better representation among countries).

11. Organisation • The Directorates General and other services • Commission: divided into organisational units (DG or Specialised services) • Various size and internal organisation of DGs & Specialised services Staff: 200-500 4-6 directorates Each divided into 3-4 units

12. Organisation (2) • The hierarchical structure • Clear structure but with some complications due to: • Imperfect match between Commissioners’ portfolios & the responsibilities of services • Halfway position of Commissioners (= more than permanent secretaries, less than ministers) • Individual responsibility difficult to apply to Commissioners • Question: Should Commission be subject to collective responsibility ? (art. 234 TFUE) • YES: all Commission proposals & decisions made collectively • NO: to undertake ≠ tasks Commission is dependent on other EU actors

13. Organisation (3) • Decision-making mechanisms • An initial draft is drawn up in the lead DG • Progress is monitored by the Secretariat General • The draft is passed upwards until reach the College of Commissioners (possibility to revise the draft) • Decision of the College of Commissioners: accept/reject/refer it back to the DG/defer ‼ all sort of variations are possible ‼ Ex: in case of urgency -› procedures to prevent logjams Other procedures are: • “written procedure” • When policy issues cut across the Commission’s administrative divisions

14. Organisation (4) • Provision for liaison and coordination in the Commission: 4 procedures • At the level of the DGs: problem of horizontal coordination • The Secretariat General: charged with ensuring that proper communication & coordination takes place across the Commission • The ill-defined coordinating responsibility of the President of the Commission • The College of Commissioners: strong position to coordinate activity & to take a broad view of Commission affairs ‼ However, there is a feeling that the Commission continues to function in too compartmentalised a manner + insufficient attention on overall EU policy coherence Some of the problems are: • Commission’s rigid organisational framework • Too jealously guarded demarcation lines • Difficulty to look much beyond their own tasks (for Commissioners & senior officials)

15. Organisation (5) • Power Resources Commission = political & administrative institution • Exclusive & non exclusive power of initiative • Neutrality • Present in all decision-making forums and at all stages • Access to EU’s policies information & needs • Smaller states look to the Commission for protection (most EU states = small)

16. Key responsibilities • Proposer and developer of policies and legislation • Executive function • The guardian of the legal framework • External representative and negotiator • Mediator and conciliator • Promoter of the general interest

17. Proposer and developer of policies and legislation • Policy initiation and development • Legislative initiation and development • Commission’s advisory committee network: • Experts  national experts and specialists • Consultative  private experts • Hybrid  combination national/private

18. Executive functions • Rule-making powers • Similar to national executives • LT: legislative acts vs delegated/implementing • Few areas: more ‘policy-making’ • Management of EU finances • Supervisor / overseer of policy implementation • Comitology: implementing committees

19. Guardian of legal framework • Non-compliance by M.S.: Since Maastricht: ECJ can specify financial penalty • Firm breaching EU law (restrictive practices and abuse of dominant market position): Comm. tries to reach an agreement O/W: fines • Firms breaching EU law on State aid • Potential breach on merger cases

20. Other responsibilities • External representative and negotiator EU’s external trade relations and other agreements, High Representative is a member of the commission, key point of contact with non-member states, support for CSFP policies,… • Mediator and conciliator seeking agreement between competing interests • Promoter of general interest ‘conscience of the union’, finding a ‘general’ path to reconcile all interests. But what is ‘General Interest’?

21. The varying influence of the Commission in the EU System • Circumstances favourable to the exercise of Commission leadership when: • it has strong & clear powers • QMV (qualified majority voting) applies in the Council • Weak control mechanisms • Uncertainty of information amongst the member states • Absence of strong conflicts in the Council & the EP • Possibility to exploiting differences between member states • Number of factors explaining why it has happened: • The increasing influence of the EC & EP • Loss of status • Defeats & failures • The growing importance of the use of “new modes of governance” • Notions of rolling back the responsibilities

22. Concluding remarks • Commission = the most distinctive of the EU’s institutions • Extensive debates & different views • Two “polar” views • The intergovernmentalist • The supranationalist BUT: !! Commission remains central and vital to the whole EU system !!

23. Thank you for your attention!